Bias in self-evaluation: Signal probability effects

Two experiments examined apparent signal probability effects in simple verbal self-reports. After each trial of a delayed matching-to-sample task, young adults pressed either a “yes” or a “no” button to answer a computer-presented query about whether the most recent choice met a point contingency requiring both speed and accuracy. A successful matching-to-sample choice served as the “signal” in a signal-detection analysis of self-reports. Difficulty of matching to sample, and thus signal probability, was manipulated via the number of nonmatching sample and comparison stimuli. In Experiment 1, subjects exhibited a bias (log b) for reporting matching-to-sample success when success was frequent, and no bias or a bias for reporting failure when success was infrequent. Contingencies involving equal conditional probabilities of point consequences for “I succeeded” and “I failed” reports had no systematic effect on this pattern. Experiment 2 found signal probability effects to be evident regardless of whether referent-response difficulty was manipulated in different conditions or within sessions. These findings indicate that apparent signal probability effects in self-report bias that were observed in previous studies probably were not an artifact of contingencies intended to improve self-report accuracy or of the means of manipulating signal probability. The findings support an analogy between simple self-reports and psychophysical judgments and bolster the conclusion of Critchfield (1993) that signal probability effects can influence simple self-reports much as they do reports about external stimuli in psychophysical experiments.     

Interesting times: practice, science, and professional associations in behavior analysis

Neither practitioners nor scientists appear to be fully satisfied with the world's largest behavior-analytic membership organization. Each community appears to believe that initiatives that serve the other will undermine the association's capacity to serve their own needs. Historical examples suggest that such discord is predicted when practitioners and scientists cohabit the same association. This is true because all professional associations exist to address guild interests, and practice and science are different professions with different guild interests. No association, therefore, can succeed in being all things to all people. The solution is to assure that practice and science communities are well served by separate professional associations. I comment briefly on how this outcome might be promoted.     

Assessment of repeated relational patterns for individual cases using the SASB-based Intrex questionnaire

Repeated interpersonal patterns are central to case conceptualization and treatment planning in interpersonal and attachment-based approaches to therapy. In this study, raters (133 college students, 165 inpatients) provided data on the Intrex questionnaire (Benjamin, 2000) about self-treatment, relationship with a significant other, and remembered interactions with parents in childhood. Within-subject profiles were inspected for precise behavioral matches conforming to 3 "copy process" (CP) patterns: identification (behaving like an important other), recapitulation (behaving as if the other person is still present and in charge), and introjection (treating the self the way another did). We observed CP evidence in most individual ratings. Consistent with expectation, nonclinical raters tended to copy a securely attached pattern of affiliation, low hostility, and moderate degrees of enmeshment and differentiation. Only patients copied maladaptive behavior at greater than base rate expectation. We discuss implications and provide recommendations for use of Intrex in individual assessment of CP.     

Human sensitivity to reinforcement in operant choice: How much do consequences matter?

The results of many human operant conditioning experiments appear to show that humans are less sensitive than nonhumans to operant consequences, suggesting species discontinuities in basic behavioral processes. A reanalysis of 31l data sets from 25 studies employing variable-interval schedules of reinforcement designed to assess sensitivity to reinforcement corroborates the claim that human behavioral allocation among alternatives often deviates from predictions based on rates of experimentally programmed consequences. Close inspection of the studies in question, however, suggests that methodological issues contribute heavily to the differences noted so far between humans and nonhumans and that an explanation based upon species discontinuities is not tenable.     

Sources cited most frequently in the experimental analysis of human behavior

We conducted an analysis of the sources cited most frequently in primary empirical reports in the experimental analysis of human behavior (EAHB) published in four journals between 1990 and 1999. Citation patterns suggest that modern EAHB is topically focused and relatively independent of both animal operant research and human research conducted outside of behavior analysis.     

Historically Low Productivity by the United States Congress: Snapshot of a Reinforcement-Contingency System in Transition

The Psychological Record - The number of new laws produced by the United States Congress has declined in recent years, with the 2013 Congress yielding the fewest new laws ever. A formerly reliable...     

Translational contributions of the experimental analysis of behavior

It has been argued that to increase societal impact behavioral researchers must do more to address problems of obvious practical importance. The basic science wing of behavior analysis has been described as especially detached from this goal, but is it really necessary that basic science demonstrate social relevance? If so, why hasn''t this occurred more often, and what can be done to improve the status quo? To address these questions and to stimulate discussion about the future of basic behavior science, I describe two widely embraced arguments in favor of pure basic science (that which is undertaken without concern for practical applications); explain why a translational research agenda is likely to better recruit tangible support for basic science; propose that addressing practical problems does not require basic science to abandon its focus on fundamental principles; and identify some possible impediments to translational innovation that may need to be addressed for basic behavior science to increase its translational footprint.